Intelligent design is back again
By Daniel M. Ryan
web posted October 3, 2005
As reported in the CBC News Website [
http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2005/09/27/intelligent_
design20050927.html ], the Dover Area School District in
Pennsylvania is effectively using intelligent design to ram home a
point about the theory of evolution by means of natural selection:
Darwin and his successors' model of the morphology of life
forms is not a fact, it is a theory, by which facts are explained,
predicted and (at least possibly) missed or misinterpreted.
Rather than being the thin edge of the creationist wedge, this use
of ID sounds more like an introduction of a New-Math-style
pedagogy into the study of biology at the high school level.
Perhaps the reason why the oppositionalists to ID are so up in
arms is that the introduction of a more evaluative mindset with
respect to Darwin's theory brings up the possibility that
creationism will follow in its wake. There is certainly nothing on
the surface which indicates any stealthy creep towards a theistic
pedagogy.
Imagine seeing or hearing this when in a high-school physics
class:
"[The standards set by the school board] require students to
learn about [Newtonian physics] and eventually to take a
standardized test of which [physics at this level] is a part.
"Because [Newton's] theory is a theory, it [has been] tested as
new evidence [has been] discovered. The theory is not a fact.
Gaps in the theory exist for which there is [contrary] evidence. A
theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad
range of observations.
"[More advanced physics has] an explanation of the [workings
of the universe] that differs from [Newton]'s view. The reference
book, [{any popular book explaining relativity and/or quantum
mechanics will fit here}] is available for students who might be
interested in gaining an understanding of what [post-Newtonian
physics] actually involves.
"With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an
open mind. The school leaves the discussion of [physics beyond
what's in the syllabus] to individual students and their families. As
a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon
preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based
assessments."
Does this strike you as the kind of notification which would
confuse students in the class now, or would it aid in eliminating
later confusion in university? Would it spread confusion into the
popular culture through the vector of students who never learned
advanced physics in university?
In the case of Einstein's Theories of Relativity, it wouldn't; both
are too well-known in the general public. In the case of Quantum
Mechanics, though, it might, believe it or not.
I have entered into a debate with a person who seriously
believes that the fundamental observation of the quantization of
the universe implies that a belief in thought transmission
(telepathy) is common-sensical. Lest you think that this kind of
metaphysical leap is confined to this belief, there are others who
insist that time is quantized and that this opens up a theoretical
possibility for time travel. All of the people who believe in these
possibilities tend to have very high I.Q.s.
And yet, this does not seem to place a serious barrier between
the efficacy of such a notice in relation to QM and high-school
students. Beliefs of this sort are considered harmless - unlike the
belief in creationism, or a theistic variant of Intelligent Design.
The above caution is a paraphrase of the one used by the Dover
Area School District, with Newtonian physics substituted for the
theory of evolution by means of natural selection. (The original
text can be found at the bottom of this story:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2005/09/27/intelligent_
design20050927.html .)
Why? Part of the answer is, undoubtedly, the embarrassment
suffered by American scientists back in the days when some
states could (and did) either forbid the teaching of Darwin's
theory entirely or mandate the inculcation of skepticism towards
it. What a policy for the European to crow over, and to serve as
the base for an assertion of ineradicable American mediocrity!
What a comedown!
It was, I am sure, even worse in countries where aristocracy still
existed. "'The Republic has no need of scientists' indeed, hm-
hm?" What an embarrassment.
There is another reason behind the Darwinists' fear of Bible-
wielding mobs, which is the aftereffect of previous political
campaigns: the initial clampdown on evolution was part and
parcel of a Christianization of politics back in the nineteenth
century. Starting in the 1830s, the dictum that the United States
was intended to be a believers' republic was taken very seriously
indeed, and showed up in politics on a recurring basis. Control
of pedagogy was only one element of the entire package, which
also included: control of immigration; illegalization of alcohol (and
some forays made against cigarettes); a statutory clampdown on
illicit mind-altering drugs which is still with us today; many and
varied blue laws; and even attempted shutdowns of parochial
Roman Catholic schools in at least one state.
Those of you who are eager to lump in the Ku Klux Klan with
"the right" should be well aware that William F. Buckley, Jr., as
he is, is a member of one of their prohibited groups. Yes, the
KKK is explicitly anti-Roman Catholic; one of its last successful
overt political actions, in the State of Oregon in 1922, resulted in
a state bill, aimed at Roman Catholic schools, which mandated
all students to go to a public school, which was later struck
down in federal court. [You may be interested to know that the
Governor of Oregon issued a proclamation clamping down on
the KKK that same year, in language which, except for a certain
anachronicity in the style, looks current:
http://www.ohs.org/education/oregonhistory/historical_records/d
spDocument.cfm?doc_ID=CC091558-
DB15-08CB-583F21043E8F36FF .] Given this, the lumping-
together of two antagonistic groups as ‘really'
being under the same colors can justly be described as...crudity.
What exists of the believer faction nowadays is much more tame
than it was. A lot of the outcries against the Moral Majority and
its likesake had as their basis little more than memories of the
nineteenth century's much more aggressive variant. Details on
what it was like can be found here. [
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard28.html ]
If you see the battle against aggressive religionists simply as a
fight against overweening religiosity, then you will suspect that the
introduction of ID into the high-school classroom is the thin edge
of a Methodist/Baptist wedge and be satisfied with such a
characterization of it. If, however, you see that old battle as a
fight against a continually erupting self-righteousness which
coalesces into factions and leaves in its wake absurd laws, then
you should ask yourself if the current outcry against Intelligent
Design is becoming similar to the fighting and re-fighting of a
culture war which ended almost a century ago.
Other criticisms of Intelligent Design can be come up with, such
as: "Unlike doing this with Newton, there's no Einstein to
straighten the kids out when they hit university; they're left with
nothing which would make their curiosity go away. Do you really
want a bunch of kids to graduate with ‘wide-open' minds?
Haven't you people heard that New Math sort-of failed in its
goals? If you have, and if you agree that the reason why was its
introduction of concepts which were beyond their age to
schoolkids, don't you think that there's a risk of Intelligent Design
being precisely the same thing? I'm as much a booster of
American scholarship as anyone, but..."
Daniel Ryan can be reached at danielmacryan@yahoo.com. (c)
2005
Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com